or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › If Not Vaccines, Then WHAT Causes Autism?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

If Not Vaccines, Then WHAT Causes Autism? - Page 12  

post #221 of 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by savithny View Post


 


Go over to the Parenting with Special Needs forum.   Search for vaccination and autism.   There are several threads that I can think of, and probably more since I stopped following it that closely, where someone came in and said "Oh, apparently no one knows any unvaccinated kids with autism!"  and then parents in that forum start posting that actually, yes, here's one, and here's another, and here's another....

 

I am trying not to go against the rule against bringing old threads to discuss in other forums, but the idea that if you're unvaccinated you can't be autistic is demonstrably false, even using MDC families.

 



This is a very large thread.  I can think of one poster who links vaccines strongly with autism (but even she discusses the mercury and heavy metals in other things) and numerous people who do not rule out environmental issues in the rate of autism.

 

I think vaccines might be linked to autism in some way for some people.  

 

Yes, unvaccinated people can be autistic.  I wonder if their rates are lower, though.  As the totally unvaccinated population is quite small it would be hard to determine.

 

post #222 of 325


Quote:

Originally Posted by savithny View Post

Go over to the Parenting with Special Needs forum.   Search for vaccination and autism.   There are several threads that I can think of, and probably more since I stopped following it that closely, where someone came in and said "Oh, apparently no one knows any unvaccinated kids with autism!"  and then parents in that forum start posting that actually, yes, here's one, and here's another, and here's another....

 

 the idea that if you're unvaccinated you can't be autistic is demonstrably false, even using MDC families.

 



Of course there are unvaccinated children with autism. I was questioning Alenushka's claim that she personally knows "quite a few" (many) unvaccinated children with autism. It's not common to personally know a lot of completely unvaccinated children, much less completely unvaccinated children with autism.  An internet thread which is asking about unvaccinated children with autism is obviously not representative of true incidence in the general population.

post #223 of 325

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 View Post
does anyone know if there is anything out there referring to the number of vaccinated children with autism vs. the number of unvaccinated children with autism, even rough numbers? I would be curious to see this.

 



A vaccinated/unvaccinated autism study would cost many millions of dollars (as most large studies do), and would require funding, usually either governmental or corporate. The government has refused to fund such a study, even though there are a lot of people asking for it. The National Vaccine Information Center has given up on waiting for the government or private industry to fund that study. The are raising funds and in the beginning stages of doing the study, but it will be many years before it is complete.

 

Generation Rescue did a telephone survey (not a study) of 9,000 boys in California and Oregon, and found that neurological disorders such as ADHD and autism were 155% higher in vaccinated boys than unvaccinated boys.

 

Also, if you haven't already, read about the zero cases of autism in the large non-vaccinating Homefirst medical practice in Chicago.

http://homefirst.com/info-1/vaccine-choice/autism-and-the-homefirst-practice.html This was written in 2005, so maybe they've had one since then, but the point is they should have a very noticeable number of patients with autism if the autism rate in completely unvaccinated children is the same as the general population.

post #224 of 325

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

Quote:



A vaccinated/unvaccinated autism study would cost many millions of dollars (as most large studies do), and would require funding, usually either governmental or corporate. The government has refused to fund such a study, even though there are a lot of people asking for it. The National Vaccine Information Center has given up on waiting for the government or private industry to fund that study. The are raising funds and in the beginning stages of doing the study, but it will be many years before it is complete.

 

Generation Rescue did a telephone survey (not a study) of 9,000 boys in California and Oregon, and found that neurological disorders such as ADHD and autism were 155% higher in vaccinated boys than unvaccinated boys.

 

Also, if you haven't already, read about the zero cases of autism in the large non-vaccinating Homefirst medical practice in Chicago.

http://homefirst.com/info-1/vaccine-choice/autism-and-the-homefirst-practice.html This was written in 2005, so maybe they've had one since then, but the point is they should have a very noticeable number of patients with autism if the autism rate in completely unvaccinated children is the same as the general population.


Thanks for the info.  This is one VERY important study and should have been done already IMO.  Of course they refuse to fund it.  Why in the world would they do that?eyesroll.gif

 

Oh, and I know all about Eisenstein's practice.  He was one of the ones who helped bring a lot of this to life for me. I listen in to his webinars sometimes.  We can't forget about the Amish either.

 


 

 

post #225 of 325

The closest I can come up with is the new study coming out of South Korea.  They assessed every child from 7-12 years old in one particular area (over 55,000 children).  They found the rate of autism is 1 in 37...  The interesting thing is that the rate of diagnosis was about 1%, so approximately what it is in the US.  But, upon seeing every child, assessing them with an autism screening tool, and offering further testing for kids that showed symptoms, the rate went from 1% to almost 3% overnight.  It is suspected that the same rate would be found in the United States if the same study was done.  So, why did the rate of autism triple in South Korea overnight?  Because they looked for it.  Because they found that if every child in a community was tested for autism (much like any other routine testing), 3% would meet criteria.  So, why is autism increasing in the US?  Because we are looking for it.  Most of the kids who were found to be autistic in South Korea were not found to be severely autistic, but the type that is on the mild/high functioning/asperger's end of the spectrum.  Those who were just quirky.  This included vaccinated, unvaccinated, rich, poor, crunchy, mainstream, those who see a doctor and those who don't...  They have a similar vaccination schedule as the US schedule, with the addition of typhoid and JE. However, just like in the US, not every child is vaccinated.  So, there is some level of confidence that the rate found in South Korea would likely be found in the US.  So, if today, every child was assessed for autism in the us, tomorrow, our rate would likely be 1 in 37, with no other reason but that those who went undiagnosed because a diagnosis was not need were diagnosed.

 

So, one reason that a vaxed vs unvaxed study would be useless is that diagnosis means nothing as to the actual rate of something occurring.  Also, many who don't vaccinate also don't like labels and refuse the diagnosis.  Even here, you can see it...one can easily pull up 10 threads in 10 minutes of people saying "we don't vax, don't see a doctor, my kid has ____________ symptoms and the school wants to diagnose him with autism/adhd/bipolar/etc. but we don't like labels and won't go though with the assessment."  This is one reason why correlation will never prove causation.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

Quote:



A vaccinated/unvaccinated autism study would cost many millions of dollars (as most large studies do), and would require funding, usually either governmental or corporate. The government has refused to fund such a study, even though there are a lot of people asking for it. The National Vaccine Information Center has given up on waiting for the government or private industry to fund that study. The are raising funds and in the beginning stages of doing the study, but it will be many years before it is complete.

 

Generation Rescue did a telephone survey (not a study) of 9,000 boys in California and Oregon, and found that neurological disorders such as ADHD and autism were 155% higher in vaccinated boys than unvaccinated boys.

 

Also, if you haven't already, read about the zero cases of autism in the large non-vaccinating Homefirst medical practice in Chicago.

http://homefirst.com/info-1/vaccine-choice/autism-and-the-homefirst-practice.html This was written in 2005, so maybe they've had one since then, but the point is they should have a very noticeable number of patients with autism if the autism rate in completely unvaccinated children is the same as the general population.



 

post #226 of 325

And good grief...why are people quoting a telephone study by generation rescue?  That is as invalid as one can get.  Even if you discount the extreme research bias, let's also add in that a telephone survey is not a reliable study, especially when the people most likely to answer a survey by generation rescue are people that take an anti-vax/vax damaged stance.  While I think a study about vaxed vs unvaxed would be interesting, if generation rescue did it, I'd throw it out as quickly as I would if the same study was done by merck.

 

BTW,  my son was showing signs of autism before he hit 3 months old, never received the MMR vax, we don't live near a coal burning plant (seriously, who threw that one out there?), we eat all organic, live an organic lifestyle, etc.  By a year old, he lost any form of communication he had, by 2 he was diagnosed as severely autistic.  He went through a lot of therapies (OT, behavior, social skills, psychological, etc.)--NEVER any metal detox or supplements or special diets, etc.  He went from a non-verbal severely autistic child at 2 to a high functioning child with asperger's and a 148 IQ at 7.  Is he cured?  Nope.  But sometimes, the natural progression of autism, without detoxing or whatever, is just as good as what people who detox say it is.  Autism is not always a downward progression.  Children can develop language and appropriate social skills and go from severe to mild over the course of a few years.  Children's brains are amazing!  But I strongly believe that those who will progress will do it, and those who won't, won't, and it has nothing to do with the parents' desire to try untested therapies.  There are a million types of autism and it kills me to see people on here (many of which have never experienced autism as a parent) declare that they know what causes it and tell us if we loved our children, we'd do dangerous things to 'cure them'.  It's one reason why I think Jenny McCarthy has about as much credibility to me (and a lot of others in the field) as PeeWee Herman.  My love for my child has nothing to do with whether or not I put him through untested 'treatments' in order to see if I can make him as conforming and 'normal' as possible. I love his quirkiness...it's who he is and one day he'll use it to change the world.


Edited by AllyRae - 6/2/11 at 10:11am
post #227 of 325

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllyRae View Post

The closest I can come up with is the new study coming out of South Korea.  They assessed every child from 7-12 years old in one particular area (over 55,000 children).  They found the rate of autism is 1 in 37...  The interesting thing is that the rate of diagnosis was about 1%, so approximately what it is in the US.  But, upon seeing every child, assessing them with an autism screening tool, and offering further testing for kids that showed symptoms, the rate went from 1% to almost 3% overnight.  

 

It is suspected that the same rate would be found in the United States if the same study was done.  

 

why is autism increasing in the US?  Because we are looking for it. 

 

So, one reason that a vaxed vs unvaxed study would be useless is that diagnosis means nothing as to the actual rate of something occurring.  Also, many who don't vaccinate also don't like labels and refuse the diagnosis.

 


It makes me wonder, why did they pick South Korea for the study? South Korea has a vastly different culture than the United States. Parents are extremely strict, children's lives are very different there than in the U.S., and it's to easy to see how children's behavior around unfamiliar adults during the screening test could be suggestive of high functioning autism/asperger's to researchers who haven't grown up in that culture.

 

I see no reason why the results would be applicable to the United States. If they wanted information to be applicable to the United States, they should have done the study in the United States. Why didn't they?

 

I'm so tired of people saying autism is on the rise just because we are looking for it. Will people please, pretty please, read this study? 

 

"the incidence of autism rose 7- to 8-fold in California from the early 1990s through the present. Quantitative analysis of the changes in diagnostic criteria, the inclusion of milder cases, and an earlier age at diagnosis during this period suggests that these factors probably contribute 2.2-, 1.56-, and 1.24-fold increases in autism, respectively, and hence cannot fully explain the magnitude of the rise in autism."

http://www.precaution.org/lib/autism_increases_real.090101.pdf


 

post #228 of 325

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllyRae View Post

And good grief...why are people quoting a telephone study by generation rescue?  


Because it's all we have, because the U.S. government has refused to fund a vaccinated/unvaccinated study. Most people don't know that! Most people assume such a study has been done, because it would be ridiculous to have not done the study!

post #229 of 325


They chose South Korea because that's where most of the researchers were from.  However, they did the study with some North Americans on the team as well.

 

I have been in the autism field for over a decade, as a researcher, student, professional, and now parent of a child with autism.  Trust me, I've read that study.  I've also read 100 more that show that what autism was 10-20 years ago and what autism is now are two different creatures.  10 years ago, my son wouldn't have been considered autistic.  At all.  Not so long ago, autism and schizophrenia were considered variants of eachother.  The rate of severe autism is consistent over the past few decades.  So, the rate of severe autism has not changed.  What has changed is the rate of mild-moderate autism. And it's changed because two decades, and even just a decade ago, mild or moderate was not even diagnosed.  It didn't become a diagnosis that happened regularly until there were benefits to doing so (increased services and financial coverage, knowledge that early intervention can help even those with mild autism, etc.)  I have been in the field a long time...I have seen the population of individuals with autism change drastically.  Ten years ago, you would find 1, maybe 2 individuals with autism in an elementary school, and both would be severe.  Now, you'll find a diagnosed child in almost every class, but the rate of severely autistic individuals is still the same.  Not only have I seen this population change, but I've seen it change across various states, while I worked on both the east coast and in Ohio.  When I first started, there is no fricken way I would have had clients enter the program with mild or moderate autism--it was unheard of.  Now, the majority of individuals seeking treatment are these mild-moderate individuals...but the rate of individuals with profound autism is still fairly consistent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

 


It makes me wonder, why did they pick South Korea for the study? South Korea has a vastly different culture than the United States. Parents are extremely strict, children's lives are very different there than in the U.S., and it's to easy to see how children's behavior around unfamiliar adults during the screening test could be suggestive of high functioning autism/asperger's to researchers who haven't grown up in that culture.

 

I see no reason why the results would be applicable to the United States. If they wanted information to be applicable to the United States, they should have done the study in the United States. Why didn't they?

 

I'm so tired of the people saying autism is on the rise just because we are looking for it. Will people please, pretty please, read this study? 

 

"the incidence of autism rose 7- to 8-fold in California from the early 1990s through the present. Quantitative analysis of the changes in diagnostic criteria, the inclusion of milder cases, and an earlier age at diagnosis during this period suggests that these factors probably contribute 2.2-, 1.56-, and 1.24-fold increases in autism, respectively, and hence cannot fully explain the magnitude of the rise in autism."

http://www.precaution.org/lib/autism_increases_real.090101.pdf


 



 

post #230 of 325

It's not all you have. It's just all many will believe.  It is really really really easy for someone to pick up the phone and find a percentage of people to agree with their findings.  It's really really easy.  Here's another take on that exact.same.study.

 

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2007/06/generation-rescue-survey-results/

 

The charts that break down autism in terms of the vaccinated, unvaccinated, and partially vaccinated shows a different story.

 

Also, the reason it can't be done and be fully reliable is that it is unethical to withhold medical treatment from a child.  You would need to randomly select a group of children to be unvaccinated--it CAN'T be a self-selected group because there could be other factors at play (including genetics, lifestyle, location to polllutants, refusal for 'labels', etc.).  Also, in the case of a measles outbreak or whatever, you'd still have to continue to withhold the vaccine for the duration of the study.  So basically, the only people you would get to participate are the hardcore non-vaxers.  Most hardcore non-vaxers lead a different lifestyle than the typical American lifestyle.  There is no legitimate ethical and scientifically valid way to conduct the study.  A study of self-selected non-vaxers is not an accurate study.


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

Quote:


Because it's all we have, because the U.S. government has refused to fund a vaccinated/unvaccinated study. Most people don't know that! Most people assume such a study has been done, because it would be ridiculous to have not done the study!



 

post #231 of 325

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllyRae View Post
do dangerous things to 'cure them'.
 
My love for my child has nothing to do with whether or not I put him through untested 'treatments' in order to see if I can make him as conforming and 'normal' as possible.


This is rude. 

 

post #232 of 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

Quote:



This is rude. 

 


It's not rude- it's the truth (as far as AllyRae sees it). She chooses to not put her child through various treatments (which have not been proven to help), that can cause more harm than good, in order to try and change who her child is. That's her choice to make and it doesn't mean she loves her child any less than another parent who chooses to use those treatments.

 

For full disclosure- AllyRae is my sister. I also have a son (the same age as AllyRae's son) who has autism. I have also chosen not to do various "treatments", which I decided could cause more harm than good. Myself and my husband have decided that we would use various therapies and whatnot that would help our son cope in this world better but NOT change who he is. We are not interested in changing him or his behaviors. The therapy he has been in is as much for us as it is for him. It teaches us various ways to help him regulate himself, not change himself. Does my child spin wildly in the grocery store sometimes? Hell yeah. Do I stop it? Not really. That's what his body NEEDS at the moment. I guide him to a place that is not busy so he won't bump into someone else, but otherwise if that's what he needs then that's fine. Did my child go through a period of beating his head on the walls/floors/etc? Yup. Did I stop it? Nope. I helped him learn ways to do it that were safer, but he is who he is and I wouldn't change it for the world. I could go on and on about ways we have worked to adapt around our son instead of trying to change him, but I won't bore you with all those details winky.gif

 

When we first moved to our current home, dh and I joined an autism parent support group. I was SHOCKED at what I heard. Almost every single parent was trying some sort of out there, crazy (to me) idea on how to cure their child's autism. Not one of them embraced their child for who they are- they were all trying to change them. We left and never looked back, because it obviously wasn't the place for us. I'm glad those parents were finding the support they obviously needed though.

post #233 of 325


No it's not.  There are documented cases of people trying things to 'cure' their child of autism, and the child ends up dead because of those treatments.  This includes outrageous numbers of chelations.  Yes, people do dangerous things in the name of 'curing autism'.  And many of those same people will say that if you really really love your child, you'll do those things too.  Uh, no.  Avoiding something that has been known to kill children does not mean I hate my child.  And holy cow, listen to the number of people who are so terrified that their child will be autistic and will do anything to make their child "normal".  It's a blatent insult to those of us with children who have autism...people honestly consider our children abnormal?  Something that needs to be chelated to fix?  And worse, something that we CAUSED and a measure of our love?  Give me a break.

 

And to continue with the generation rescue thing.  Let's say I decide to call 100 people and ask them 2 questions--does your child have autism and did you ride a bike during pregnancy.  Then I find out that 95% of the children with autism had parents who had ridden a bike during pregnancy and 5% of children with autism had parents who did not ride a bike, can I conclude that riding a bike during pregnancy causes autism?  What if I called up 1000 people and ask them if they used tap water or if they used a bucket to get water from a well, then I find out that 99% of those with autism received tap water and 1% received well water not out of a tap, can I then conclude that tap water causes autism?  NO!  Correlation does NOT equal causation!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

Quote:



This is rude. 

 



 

post #234 of 325

Quote:

Originally Posted by StephandOwen View Post
Did my child go through a period of beating his head on the walls/floors/etc? Yup. Did I stop it? Nope.

Wow.

post #235 of 325

Exactly, Steph.  Our children do not need to be 'cured', chelated, detoxed, and treated like abnormal members of society that need to be fixed.  They need understanding, love, acceptance, and sometimes a little help learning to get along in a society that sees them as nothing but a psychiatric disorder or an incidence of vaccine damage.

post #236 of 325

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllyRae View Post
There are documented cases of people trying things to 'cure' their child of autism, and the child ends up dead because of those treatments.  

 


1) How many? What percentage of the time? I can think of one case, where the doctor committed gross negligence and used the wrong drug for chelation. Medical malpractice can happen with any treatment, for any illness.

 

2) There are documented cases of children dying because they have autism. Wandering and drowning, for example. Since we hear about those cases in the news quite often, and very rarely hear of a child dying from a biomedical treatment (and believe me, it would be all over the news), I think autism is more dangerous than any treatment done under the supervision of a doctor.

post #237 of 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

Also, if you haven't already, read about the zero cases of autism in the large non-vaccinating Homefirst medical practice in Chicago.

http://homefirst.com/info-1/vaccine-choice/autism-and-the-homefirst-practice.html This was written in 2005, so maybe they've had one since then, but the point is they should have a very noticeable number of patients with autism if the autism rate in completely unvaccinated children is the same as the general population.



That's interesting and certainly bears looking into, but we really need more information about this practice and their patients to come to any real conclusions. However, I find this statement troubling:

 

"We do have enough of a sample," Eisenstein said. "The numbers are too large to not see it. We would absolutely know. We're all family doctors. If I have a child with autism come in, there's no communication. It's frightening. You can't touch them. It's not something that anyone would miss."

 

Family doctors do not diagnose autism. If you talk to families who have children with autism, you will hear stories about how family doctors miss Autism Spectrum Disorders all the time, especially in children who are not severely affected. In my area, the diagnosis is made by a team of specialists at the local children's hospital. A developmental pediatrician heads the team and received input from the members including a nuerologist, a psychologist, a SLP, a OT, and an audiologist. The whole dignostic process takes about 4-6 months. It's not a matter of walking into the family doctor's office for a regular visit and just getting a diagnosis of ASD.

 

In my son's case, our family doctor (actually his specialty is med-peds, but he is the doctor for our whole family) did not think my son had Autism Spectrum Disorder. When I first requested a referral to the developmental pediatrician, he didn't think it was necessary and talked me out of it. A week later I called him and said that after thinking about it some more and talking to my son's SLP, I really wanted the referral.  The doctor was surprized and told me that he still didn't think it was needed, but if I felt that strongly about it he would write the referral. He was intially surprised when DS got a diagnosis on the Autism Spectrum, but once he read the entire team report, it became clear to him that the diagnosis was indeed accurate.

 

There is also a problem with Eisenstein's description of autism as "...there's no communication. It's frightening, You can't touch them."  This is a stereotyped view of autism and does not reflect an accruate description of many people with ASDs. Many people with autism spectrum disorders are able to communicate, although it takes more effort and patience on the part of the communication partner. And many children with ASD do like to be touched. Some crave it, even from strangers.

 

Certainly, if my son's doctor described patients with autism as frightening and untouchable, I would change doctors immediately. Which makes me wonder if families leave this practice after having a child diagnosed with autism. Also, I wonder if Eisenstein's limited view of autism means that his patients are underdiagnosed. Does he perhaps have patients who have symptoms of autism - including language delays and sensory processing disorders - but who lack the official diagnosis? 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 View Post

 We can't forget about the Amish either.

 


The Amish are a very interesting group. Not only are their medical practices different from the mainstream society, but they are culturally unique and are a (mostly) genetically homogenous group. So you really can't look at their rates of autism and correlate it to just one factor of their lifestyle.  Here's an interesting article about autism and the Amish:

 

http://autism.about.com/b/2008/04/23/do-the-amish-vaccinate-indeed-they-do-and-their-autism-rates-may-be-lower.htm 

 

It doesn't prove things one way or another, but it raises some interesting points.  

 

post #238 of 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

 

2) There are documented cases of children dying because they have autism. Wandering and drowning, for example. Since we hear about those cases in the news quite often, and very rarely hear of a child dying from a biomedical treatment (and believe me, it would be all over the news), I think autism is more dangerous than any treatment done under the supervision of a doctor.

 

The issue of "elopement" (as autistic wandering is commonly called) is HUGE for us. It's something we have been dealing with for years and has required us to make changes to our home and our routines. A recent survey by the Interactive Autism Network showed that roughly half of children ages 4-10 with autism attempt to elope (note: this is a parent survey of pre-selected individuals, not a scientific study).  So it's not only a HUGE issue for us, it is a for many other families.

 

And yet even elopement is not scary enough to drive us to try certain alternative treatments. Some of the stuff out there that is marketed as a "cure" for autism is truly frightening. And "under the supervision of a doctor" can mean many things, from a traditional MD to an alternative health practioner (may or may not be licensed)  to a guy with a PhD who creates his own suppliments. I wrote about this in my post upthread (Post #205) about how hard it can be to sift through all this and sort out the dedicated professionals from the snake oil salesmen. Autism therapies are a big business with little regulation.

post #239 of 325

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lollybrat View Post

The issue of "elopement" (as autistic wandering is commonly called) is HUGE for us.

 

A recent survey by the Interactive Autism Network showed that roughly half of children ages 4-10 with autism attempt to elope

 

And yet even elopement is not scary enough to drive us to try certain alternative treatments. Some of the stuff out there that is marketed as a "cure" for autism is truly frightening.

 


Parents who work with doctors to heal and recover their children with autism don't try things that they think are "truly frightening." They don't try everything. The do a ton of research and work with their doctors to choose the best course of treatment.

 

So you do realize that autism can cause death. From your figures, elopement is a bigger danger than biomedical treatment. I know of one case where the wrong drug (obviously wrong drug--gross negligence) caused a death from biomedical treatment. If you know of more (and I admit there may be one or two more), please give us the details.

 

I'd bet a lot of money you wouldn't be able to find anywhere close to as many as there are deaths from wanderings and drownings in children with autism.

 

post #240 of 325


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

 

 


Parents who work with doctors to heal and recover their children with autism don't try things that they think are "truly frightening." They don't try everything. The do a ton of research and work with their doctors to choose the best course of treatment.

 

So you do realize that autism can cause death. From your figures, elopement is a bigger danger than biomedical treatment. I know of one case where the wrong drug (obviously wrong drug--gross negligence) caused a death from biomedical treatment. If you know of more (and I admit there may be one or two more), please give us the details.

 

I'd bet a lot of money you wouldn't be able to find anywhere close to as many as there are deaths from wanderings and drownings in children with autism.

 


Since no drugs are clinically proven to "treat autism" can you please tell me how any drug could be considered "the right drug?"

 

I have no idea how a slick organization such as DAN! that makes literally millions off of selling "supplements" ranging everywhere from pointless to deadly is so much better in people's minds than "big pharma." Biomedical treatment of Autism is big big bucks, and should be treated with the same suspicion as any other group making money hand over fist from people's medical treatment. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › If Not Vaccines, Then WHAT Causes Autism?